M. C. Chagla, C. J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Coyajee dismissing a summons for judgment taken out by the plaintiffs on the ground that this Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant against whom the summons was taken out contended that he was a resident of Chalisgaon, that he was: a debtor within the meaning of Act XXVIII of 1947, and, therefore, this Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit.
(2.)MR. Desai on behalf of the plaintiffs has argued before us that in view of the fact that Act XXVIII of 1947 is not applicable to the City of Bombay, and this suit having been filed on the Original Side of the High Court, this Court had jurisdiction to try the suit notwithstanding the fact that the defendant might be a debtor within the meaning of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act. Turning to the scheme of the Act, it is clear that the Act was enacted for the purpose of giving relief to agricultural debtors in the Province of Bombay, and one exception that was made by Section 1 (2) was that although the Act was made applicable to the whole of the Province of Bombay it did not apply to the City of Bombay. Under Section 19 of the Act, All suits, appeals, applications for execution and proceedings other than revisional in respect of any debt pending in any civil or revenue Court shall, if they involve the questions whether the person from whom such debt is due is a debtor and whether the total amount of debts due from him on the date of the application exceeds Rs. 15,000, be transferred to the Court. And the Court to which these suits, appeals and application are to be transferred is defined in the Act itself, and the Court is, for the purposes of this Act, the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, having ordinary jurisdiction in the area where the debtor ordinarily resides, and if there is no such Civil Judge, the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, having such jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court set up for the purposes of this Act, as far as this particular defendant is concerned, would be the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Chalisgaon, and this Court has to try certain preliminary issues as laid down in Section 17 of the Act, and these preliminary issues are: (a) Whether the person for the adjustment of whose debts the application has been made is a debtor? (b) Whether the total amount of debts due from such person on the date of the application exceeds Rs. 15,000 ? Now, there is no warrant for suggesting that the civil or revenue Courts referred to in Section 19 do not include the Original Side of the High Court. Section 19 is general in its terms and it precludes any civil or revenue Court from continuing with any proceeding pending before it, if such a proceeding involves the question whether the person from whom a debt is due is a debtor and also the question as to what the total amount of debt is. The object of the Legislature was that both these questions should not be determined by the ordinary civil and revenue Courts in the Province, but by the Special Courts set up under this Act, and as far as the defendant is concerned, as I pointed out earlier, that Special Court is the Court within whose jurisdiction he ordinarily resides, and he residing ordinarily at Chalisgaon, that Court would be the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Chalisgaon.
Now, our attention has been drawn to a judgment of Mr. Justice Desai which he delivered on July 22, 1948, (Juharimal Senaji v. Liladhar (1948) 51 Bom. L. R. 485) holding that notwithstanding Act XXVIII of 1947 and notwithstanding the contention taken up by the defendant that he was a debtor within the meaning of that Act, the Original Side of the High Court had jurisdiction to try such a suit. The learned Judge took the view that as there was no provision in this Act expressly ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court, it must be held that the jurisdiction of the High Court was not affected by Act XXVIII of 1947. In my opinion, the words of Section 19 are wide enough and general enough to apply to the High Court as well as to the other civil and revenue Courts in the Province, and, therefore, I read Section 19 (1) as in fact expressly ousting the jurisdiction of this Court to try those matters which involve the questions mentioned in that sub-section. Therefore, the only proper interpretation to give to the expression "city of Bombay," as it occurs in Section 1 (2), is not to apply it to the Courts in the City of Bombay but to the people residing in the City of Bombay. This exception only means that if there is an agriculturist ordinarily resident in the City of Bombay, then he would not be entitled to the benefits and privileges of Act XXVIII of 1947. It certainly does not mean that although an agriculturist may ordinarily reside in a part of the Province to which the Act applies, he would still not be entitled to the benefits and privileges of this Act merely because his creditor chooses to file a suit against him on the Original Side of the High Court of Bombay.

The learned Judge has dismissed the summons for judgment. With respect to him, it was clearly erroneous because all that Section 19 lays down is that the suit should be transferred to the Court specified in the Act for the purpose of the trial of the two preliminary issues. This Court has undoubtedly jurisdiction to entertain the suit, but it has no jurisdiction to try those two preliminary issues which will determine whether he is entitled to the benefit of the Act or not. It may be that he may fail to satisfy the Chalisgaon Court that he is a debtor within the meaning of the Act. In that case the proceedings will come back to this Court. If, on the other hand, he succeeds in establishing that he is a debtor as contemplated by the Act, then further proceedings will have to be taken as laid down in the Act. Therefore, the proper order that the learned Judge should have made was to transfer the suit which has been filed here to the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chalisgaon.

(3.)WE would, therefore, set aside the order made by the learned Judge and order that there will be no order on the summons except that the suit be transferred to the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Chalisgaon. Costs of the summons, costs of the suit, and costs of the appeal to be costs in the" cause.
Liberty to the plaintiffs' attorneys to withdraw the sum of Ks. 500 deposited by them in Court for costs of the appeal. Bhagwati, J.